Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 782 SW2D 524 - Jordan v. State

Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2017

8 state decisions

40199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Almanza v. State · Arline v. State · Thomas v. State · Williams v. State · Sanders v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in Harris County, Texas, the defendant, Matthew McGowan, on or about the 8th day of June, 1992, did knowingly communicate or transmit to Kent Weightman a trade secret namely: technical information ... owned by Eugene Holler, without the effective consent of the owner, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The burden of proof is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the conduct charged the defendant was sane; that is, that he was not suffering from a severe mental disease or defect rendering him unable to know that his conduct was wrong. Therefore, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense of aggravated sexual assault as alleged •in the indictment, or the lesser included offense of aggravated assault as herein-before charged, but you further find, or have a reasonable doubt thereof, that at the time of the conduct charged, Charles Eugene Riley, Jr., as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict, “not guilty by reason of insanity.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “flesh out and explain the application paragraph.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.